A Cook County jury ordered Blinov to shell out $4,802 last week after he was sued by a husband from a Chicago suburb for stealing the affections of the man's wife.

Arthur Friedman used a little-known state law to mount the legal attack against Blinov. The alienation of affection law, one of eight across the country, lets spouses seek damages for the loss of love.

But Natalie Friedman, the woman at the center of it all, claims her husband asked her to have sex with other men and women -- including Blinov -- to spice up their relationship.

She supposedly began having feelings for Blinov, prompting her husband to file the lawsuit.

"This guy ruined my life -- he backstabbed me," Arthur Friedman told the Chicago Sun-Times. "What he did was wrong. And I did what I had to do to get my point across."

Blinov doesn't deny having a relationship with Natalie Friedman while she was married, but he was surprised to learn he could be sued for it. His attorney also said Natalie Friedman was unhappy with her marriage before the relationship started.

"German was not a pirate of her affections," attorney Enrico Mirabelli said. "Her affections were already adrift."

A Cook County jury ordered Blinov to shell out $4,802 last week after he was sued by a husband from a Chicago suburb for stealing the affections of the man's wife.

Arthur Friedman used a little-known state law to mount the legal attack against Blinov. The alienation of affection law, one of eight across the country, lets spouses seek damages for the loss of love.

But Natalie Friedman, the woman at the center of it all, claims her husband asked her to have sex with other men and women -- including Blinov -- to spice up their relationship.

She supposedly began having feelings for Blinov, prompting her husband to file the lawsuit.

"This guy ruined my life -- he backstabbed me," Arthur Friedman told the Chicago Sun-Times. "What he did was wrong. And I did what I had to do to get my point across."

Blinov doesn't deny having a relationship with Natalie Friedman while she was married, but he was surprised to learn he could be sued for it. His attorney also said Natalie Friedman was unhappy with her marriage before the relationship started.

"German was not a pirate of her affections," attorney Enrico Mirabelli said. "Her affections were already adrift."

I don't see anything wrong with alienation of affection as a tort, save that such a lawsuit might be "too common." If Alice and Bob enter into a commercial contract, and Carl knowingly convinces Alice to breach it, Bob can sue Carl (for "tortious interference") If Alice and Bob agree to marry, and Carl tries to screw that up (knowing full well that Alice is in fact married), why should the law be different? If Alice and Carl want to make the beast with two backs, Alice can get a divorce.

Now, in this case, the woman alleged that the husband basically urged her to have a relationship with this man, but I'm guessing from the award that the jury (or judge, if there was no jury) didn't buy that.

In case anyone is interested the 8 states in which alienation of affection is still a tort are: Hawaii, Illinois, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Dakota, and Utah. So don't knowingly steal spouses in those states.

Steal a spouse?? Steal!!! You steal property, whether physical or intellectual. You can't steal affection. If she didn't lov ehim anymore, what affection would there have been to steal anyways?!
I would think Chicago would be more civilized than that. Its embarrassing.

Steal a spouse?? Steal!!! You steal property, whether physical or intellectual. You can't steal affection. If she didn't lov ehim anymore, what affection would there have been to steal anyways?!
I would think Chicago would be more civilized than that. Its embarrassing.

Click to expand...

I was using "steal" in the sense of definition 3, not in a technical legal sense, as was the article you mention. As noted, the tort is "alienation of affection" not "theft of a spouse" and it requires someone to knowingly come between a husband and wife in a way that destroys the loving relationship between the two.

It's easy to protect yourself against such a lawsuit, just don't get involved with a person you know to be married. If you do, then you should really *know* that you are doing something bad and you should really realize that you deserve some punishment; so I don't see why it would be a shock that the state frowns on your actions and lets an aggrieved spouse do something about it. Lawsuits are simply the best remedy the state has to offer them, short of criminalizing your conduct.

A lot of husbands wouldn't bother with a lawsuit, they'd simply shoot you. A lot of juries would let those husbands go free. Mr. Blinov should be grateful that Mr. Friedman only sued him; he should also be ashamed of himself, as should Mrs Friedman.

Steal a spouse?? Steal!!! You steal property, whether physical or intellectual. You can't steal affection. If she didn't lov ehim anymore, what affection would there have been to steal anyways?!
I would think Chicago would be more civilized than that. Its embarrassing.

Click to expand...

See you people even the courts agree that females are mens property once they are wed, you all laughed at me for this but now we have actual evidence. James R move over they should make me the new head sherrif in town woot!

But Natalie Friedman, the woman at the center of it all, claims her husband asked her to have sex with other men and women -- including Blinov -- to spice up their relationship.

She supposedly began having feelings for Blinov, prompting her husband to file the lawsuit.

Click to expand...

With the bold statement, sounds like he brought that shit on himself; it's kinda like someone smoking cigarettes their whole life, knowing what they can do, then suing the tobacco company when they get lung cancer.

You're just asking for trouble when you bring up a threesome, or stuff like he wanted to do. If he was at the state of asking her to have sex with others to spice up the relationship, IMO it was doomed then.

orleander by reading your OWN post i see nothing here making women property, you said spouse not wife so im asuming the law doesnt care if its a man or women.

unless your saying that women HAVE to cheat of course

to be honest how is this any different from a women refusing to let her ex see his kids while trying to get the apsolute max in child surport to punish him. to be honest if divorse tends to hurt the man even if its a divorse because of infidelity on behalf of the women. if she cheats in general the courts will still give her thd kids, the house, at least half of the money he has earned probably while she was out sleeping around (note i dont think this is what causes all break ups\divorses)

See you people even the courts agree that females are mens property once they are wed, you all laughed at me for this but now we have actual evidence.

Click to expand...

The concept of alienation of affection is not gender-biased. A woman could be sued by another woman. For that matter a spouse of either gender could have a gay lover, something that we've been hearing a lot about lately.

Forty years ago I was told that there were jurisdictions (mostly in the Bible Belt) where a jury would never convict a man for killing a man he caught with his wife. But I never heard about the potential fate of a woman charged with the same crime.

One cannot "steal" affection. Not because it isn't property, I mean it's more complicated than that. If you love someone that doesn't love you back and they love someone else, then that someone else hasn't "stolen" the person you love's affection, it was never there. Or it's not there anymore.

One cannot "steal" affection. Not because it isn't property, I mean it's more complicated than that. If you love someone that doesn't love you back and they love someone else, then that someone else hasn't "stolen" the person you love's affection, it was never there. Or it's not there anymore.

Click to expand...

If the two sppouses were not in love to some degree at the time the defendant started "interfering", then the law says the plaintiff should lose...the law says that. Further, the plaintiff has the burden of proving both that the love existed and that defendant was maliciously caused damage to it, by a preponderance of the evidence. Even under your standard the tort itself seems theoretically valid.

Also, it's not a question of "theft." If Alice and Bob are happily married, and Carla comes along and convinces Alice that Bob is a criminal (let's say Carla alleges being raped by Bob or that Bob is a child molester). If Alice stops loving Bob and the marriage breaks up as a result, Carla can be sued under this theory (as well as for slander, whether or not the marriage breaks up). Adultery need not exist between Alice and Carla. Adultery happens to be a common reason for asserting such a claim, but it isn't required. All that matters if that A and B were in love and married and C maliciously destroyed that relationship.

If Alice and Bob enter into a commercial contract, and Carl knowingly convinces Alice to breach it, Bob can sue Carl (for "tortious interference") If Alice and Bob agree to marry, and Carl tries to screw that up (knowing full well that Alice is in fact married), why should the law be different?

Click to expand...

I admit to knowing nothing at all about "alienation of affection" statues, but I'm astonished that you could win such a case if you already agreed to let the person have sex with your wife in a three-some etc. I wonder if the plaintiff denied that part? I wish the article was more detailed.

I admit to knowing nothing at all about "alienation of affection" statues, but I'm astonished that you could win such a case if you already agreed to let the person have sex with your wife in a three-some etc. I wonder if the plaintiff denied that part? I wish the article was more detailed.

Click to expand...

That's an allegation, made by the wife, it's likely as not the judge (or jury) simply never believed that happened. Even if the husband did admit it, though, it seems like that would limit the damages recoverable (perhaps to a nominal $1 recovery), rather than completely negate the lawsuit. It depends on what the defendant did. Suppose the husband did agree to let his wife have sex with the guy once, and they guy then put in a sustained effort to securce and win over the wife, eventually convincing her to leave her husband.

I can imagine many different sets of facts given the scant deatils of the reports.